Satire loves drama. From farce in open-air theaters to modern-day hosts slipping jokes in their shows, satire has persistently reserved its spot as a channel for critique. It’s interesting—it’s been the same all these years. As it turns out, what’s changing isn’t the satire itself, but the subjects of commentary, which have evolved to be increasingly radical. That radicalism blurs the line between satire and real news, begging the question: how funny is satirical news? As the ability to distinguish satire from reality dims to speculation, I hoped to test the extent to which the two are interchangeable (and, by association, the extent to which satirical news is funny). After all, if satirical news writers intend to be humorous—and by no means misinformative—wouldn’t it be easy to tell?

To put Bronx Science students’ wit to the test, I gathered six pairs of headlines—one from The Onion (left-leaning) or The Babylon Bee (right-leaning), and one from a real news source—and asked 50 students to guess which is which. Each headline was vaguely correlated to its pair, and each satirical headline had some sort of pun; if not, a slight twist to true events to make it “funny.” Admittedly, I didn’t take all my real news from top news sources, but rather from mostly credible sources, as The New York Times worded their headlines with dry and clear-cut language unlike, say, Yahoo Finance, or The New York Post’s tinge of clickbait. Nevertheless, all real news headlines wrote about true events. 

But before you judge students’ responses, why not take the quiz yourself?: Can You Tell the Difference Between Real and Satirical News? 

Upon viewing the responses, I was admittedly disappointed. Across all 40 submissions, most scored a 2/6 (14 students) and only one student got all six questions correct. To add, if you were to look at all 12 headlines at once, you would notice one pattern: they are all left-leaning. Despite that two headlines were from The Onion and four were from The Babylon Bee, most of their headlines chose to pick fun at the Grand Old Party over Democrats. Why? After my fair share of skimming satirical headlines, I found one blatant pattern: the articles found in the year range of 2021-2024 criticized Democrats far more greatly, while most recent headlines wrote pointed remarks in regards towards Republicans. 

When a party is in office, it is inevitable that news articles would feature that party more, giving satirical news a landscape of articles focused around one party to pick fun at. It explains the left-leaning nature of the headlines, though it risks confounding the data. If someone’s political affiliation was right-leaning, were they less inclined to choose the satirical headlines? I didn’t ask for the student’s political party or literacy in the quiz. To add, participants were conveniently sampled, meaning they were predominantly people I knew, resulting in data that cannot represent the entire population of Bronx Science.  

With all that aside, what do the responses of Bronx Science students say about satirical news? Did the skewed distribution prove its unfunniness, or argue something else? 

First, it must be made clear: to call satire unfunny is a stretch. Both The Onion and The Babylon Bee had their fair share of hilarious headlines, though I knowingly ignored them for the purpose of this survey. For one, that partly disproves the likelihood of confusing a random satirical article for real, as your average satirical headline intends to be obviously outlandish–in other words funny. But that wasn’t my point—I didn’t want to prove that all satire is doomed to be mistaken. In fact, it’s the other way around. While taking a satirical headline seriously may indicate a failed satirical writer, consciously determining a real headline as fake is a completely different story.  

Question five of the survey chiefly reflects this. 

China Threatens To Fire Senators Who Voted For TikTok Ban. (The Babylon Bee)

China’s Xi Jinping Asked ‘What’s so Bad About Deflation?’ Amid Economic Slowdown, Report Says. (Yahoo Finance)

Across all 40 responses, the vote was practically split down the middle, with 21 choosing the first headline and 19 choosing the second. The pun the first headline intended to communicate was that China could’t fire American senators, proving the vanity of the statement. However, when placed besides the second headline, some may be stumped by their disbelief for both statements—chiefly because they haven’t heard of the quote before. Does that reflect Bronx Science students’ political illiteracy? Likely not. The sensation is closest to taking a trivia quiz at a game show, only you’ve never heard of the country they’re asking the capital of. So, you sit with what you know, the connotations of the choices, and reassure yourself with hazy pieces of prior knowledge. In the same way, Bronx Science students sat with that same uncertainty, now unable to count on their school-trained intelligence, but rather forced to search for subtle cues in a singular sentence. And they couldn’t. 

It’s clear that the real issue doesn’t lie with the believability of satire, but the bizarre pliability of modern news. With social media algorithms rewarding virality and attention spans rapidly diminishing, the last resort for journalism to fight anachronism is quick, punchy headlines that were once exclusive to satire. Not that it’s unique to today, but ever more exacerbated than before. It’s not just that, though, as the content of these articles tend to grow more and more unbelievable, regardless of how it’s communicated. It marks a new era where the world’s unpredictability has eroded our trust, urging for more than just a politically-seasoned eye to detect satire.

But where does political literacy fail? When answering Question 1 of the survey, it was clear that students’ engagement in politics played no part in aiding their response, with only 5 students answering correctly. 

You Should Mate With Short People to Fight Climate Change, Expert Says. (Popular Mechanics)

Study: Climate Change Making Airplane Turbulence Worse. (The Onion)

The first headline was based on a New York Times article, “There Has Never Been a Better Time to be Short,” explaining how short people don’t need to eat as much to sustain themselves, saving food and reducing overproduction. It’s an absurd take, but to an extent, so is the second headline. The reason why the second headline is satire is due to a comedic malapropism: climate change worsens jet streams, or high-altitude winds, which this article purposely mixes up “jets” with airplane turbulence. 

But then, I realized I made a mistake. Despite the ludicrous explanation in The Onion article, the headline wasn’t lying, as I stumbled upon article after article explaining why airplane turbulence has been worsening with time—specifically due to climate change, and more specifically due to jet streams. Both credible and satirical sources talked about airplane turbulence worsening, making the already ill-defined distinction between satire and reality even hazier. 

Perhaps we are in a crisis: our status quo has devolved into a collection of unbelievable events, provoking not only greater misinformation, but accurate accounts in articles that were joking. Though airplane turbulence worsening climate change isn’t quite an unbelievable take, it’s the one of the few examples where even a satirical writer didn’t know what to believe. 

Regardless of its intent, satirical news does not only have the power to misinform, but polarize populations. Take a look at Question 2. 

Trump Assures Pain From Tariffs Should Settle Down By His Third Term. (The Babylon Bee)

President Trump tells Americans to ‘Hang Tough,’ Golfs Again as Universal Tariffs Begin. (USA Today)

The discrepancy between correct and incorrect responses was small, with 22 students determining the first is satire and 18 determining the second. However, if you were to view the first headline with the knowledge that Trump’s claim is untrue, the intent of the headline is clear: invoke anger in its readers, and rally opposition towards statements and policies Trump is implementing. 

Out of all headlines, the difference between satirical and sober reporting is most detectable here. In the second headline, there isn’t a pun it is communicating or even attempting to communicate—just Trump golfing while tariffs are being implemented. On the other hand, the first headline announces a bold confirmation that Trump will run for a third term, when the reality is that he believes it’s too early to tell; that exaggeration, in itself, is the core of satirical news. So, why did Bronx Science students struggle to correctly answer this question? Ultimately, there are two things that the results of this survey prove, the first being the predominant political affiliation of the subjects, and the second being the overall attitude towards politics today. 

Though it could be proven true without this survey, Bronx Science is primarily consisted of left-leaning, or anti-Trump students, explaining why 18 students believed the first headline to be true. It’s not just that, though, but the overwhelming dissent for today’s politics in Bronx Science, which might allow us to fall prey to these exaggerations. By associating the emotion we feel from real news with the programmed reaction this headline intends to provoke, the article achieved the exact attention it strived for. 

The fact that participants lingered over certain pairs suggests an internal debate about plausibility, not humor. So, when we ask if satirical news is funny, we are plainly asking the wrong question. The goal of satire is no longer to bring humor to politics, but to make readers analyze their own reactions—did they laugh, or would they have believed the article if “satire” wasn’t written in the corner? In that sense, satire accomplishes its goal–to highlight the sheer ridiculousness of what passes as reality, and in doing so, quietly suggest how much we’ve normalized. It also forces readers to stop and doubt what they read from time to time—if something sounds off, consider that some websites intentionally produce untrue accounts. So, the next time a satirical article writes, “Trump Assures Pain From Tariffs Should Settle Down By His Third Term,” and you don’t bat an eye, satire didn’t fail—you did. Or rather, our politics did. 

Perhaps that’s the bittersweet truth of our media age: satire no longer needs to lie to be funny. Instead, by regurgitating true information with variation and mockery, they make us rethink politics today. 

When (most) Bronx Science students viewed their failing grade on this quiz, was that their cue to read more of the news? Not necessarily. There isn’t a firm method to ensure you will always guess what is satire, and there likely never will be. However, it is an opportunity to indulge in reading satire, as it’s just like seeing a caricature of yourself: funny, until the discomfort settles in—“is my nose really that big?” In other words, it’s jarringly reflective of today’s society, regardless of if the joke hits or lands too close to home. Though, in its own way, that’s exactly what’s so beautiful about satire. 

The next time you scroll past an absurd headline, don’t be so quick to laugh or believe. Just pause. Let the absurdity settle in. Then ask yourself—what’s funnier: the satire, or the fact that it could be real?

Perhaps that’s the bittersweet truth of our media age: satire no longer needs to lie to be funny. Instead, by regurgitating true information with variation and mockery, they make us rethink politics today.